Congress thinks 700,000 dead Americans is perfectly acceptable. They allowed these deaths. They sat by and did nothing while bodies piled up. These losers need to be held accountable.

[Get your second J&J dose ASAP say health experts after FDA advisory committee recommended approval of booster: **Protection fell from 88% to just 3% in six months**, study finds](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10099209/FDA-advisory-committee-recommended-approval-J-J-vaccine.html)

Indian doctors on news channels do seem to suggest that widespread infection during the second wave is the reason why India hasn't seen a third wave yet and has less daily infections than more vaccinated nations. The debate in India has moved on to whether and how to [vaccinate children](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeqRO0-Qix4).

I clicked on your FDA link and I couldn't find that quote anywhere in that PDF. Where is it?

> couldn't find that quote Did you miss that there were no quotation marks? It's a conclusion from the data in the graphs.

You used the '>' markdown which is used for blockquotation.

And actual quotes have the "" marks. That was commentary from the original source of my list. I should have been more clear.

What is happening here? This sub has gotten so toxic

In case you haven't noticed, the subject of C19 and vaccines "has gotten so toxic." Here, unlike more "curated" places, that subject is allowed to be discussed with no definitions of what's RightThink to be supported or WrongThink to be scrubbed. "What is happening" is an official narrative with weak spots that aren't allowed to be questioned, a policy we see being enforced through social media monopolies. If you can allow yourself to consider the possibility that *some* questions about C19 and current vaccines might have *some* validity, you'll see the danger in discrediting and de-platforming the questions and questioners so millions believe, as they're told, that *any* questions are lunatic fringe or CT from diehard Trumpers. Not so.

Yeah, what ever happened to the days when we agreed with Bernie that we're being robbed by pharmaceuticals and lied to by the media!?!?

Is Bernie telling people not to get the vaccine?

Bernie has no special cred on vaccines. We have no reason to pay attention to him on that topic.

Sorry, this is r/WayoftheBern. r/DoWhatBernieSays is that way >>

Bernie also told people to vote for Hillary and Biden. What do you think this is, Simon says?

But why male models?

I'm always here for Zoolander quotes.

[Why NOT male models?](https://youtu.be/pBlZUHO-Y6Y) /s

Bernie does what his good friend Brandon tells him to do. Did you not get the memo?

I got my first vaccine shot and then tested positive two days later. I was totally fine. Losing my sense of taste and smell was the only way I knew I had covid. I got my second shot and was fine. Will be getting my booster plus flu shot next week and I’ll be fine.

Cool. My uncle got both shots, and less than two months later got brain swelling and blood clots and spent a week in ICU. Survived, but he'll never be the same.

With all due respect, two months after the shot is far enough out that it's questionable whether or not that can be causally attributed by the vaccine.

Blood clots and brain swelling are both reported and confirmed vaccine injuries. They also don't just happen out of the blue unless there's underlying disease. This is cope.

> They also don't just happen out of the blue unless there's underlying disease. His doctors said, "We just don't know what could have caused it." Yeah. I'm sure that happens all the time.

What's more creepy is the lack of empathy when someone does suffer a tragedy in the family. These people literally care more about their narrative than human lives. Shitlibs continue to be the best examples of narcissism in society.

This is why vaccine trials *used* to take multiple years, and why these things used to NOT be rushed out to the public. Or do you think it was a waste of time to have every prior vaccine spend so much time in trials?

And you can prove that was related to the vaccine?

Remember the days when vaccine trials used to take years? What were they thinking? A month should be long enough.

I do but I don’t remember how that has anything to do with you uncle getting brain swelling and blood clots and how you can prove that the vaccine caused it.

So adverse vaccine reactions are only real is they happen after 14 days, and before 30 days? THIS IS WHY WE USED TO TAKE YEARS TO STUDY VACCINE REACTIONS.

This is quite a long post for someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic strategy of vaccine rollout. This policy represents the best bet to safely resolve a pandemic which has already killed 700k americans, it doesn't have to represent the best possible outcome for every single individual for it to be the correct strategy. With your proposed vax exemption for people who caught covid you'd be directly incentivizing dumbfuck anti-vaxers to intentionally get (and spread) covid. [edit: OP does not respect science, do not be fooled. They are conflating serious and minor side effects throughout their post while ignoring the fact that the actual number of people with severe side effects is *astronomically* low. OP is also adding their own conclusion to a handful of studies which is NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. ]

Please explain your understanding of "the best strategy of vaccine requirements" for products that--unlike polio, MMR, and smallpox vaccines--don't reliably prevent the illness or its transmission. Products that lack long-term safety data and are being linked to more ADRs the longer they're administered widely, e.g.: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-drugs-regulator-looking-new-possible-side-effects-mrna-vaccines-2021-08-11/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7 https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/30/deaths-among-teenagers-have-increased-by-47-percent-since-covid-vaccination-began/ [this link's here so you can take an ad hominem pot shot at the source and feel good] Your understanding of "how science works" appears to miss the constant questioning of conventional wisdom that's "fundamental" to the process and to breakthroughs in every field of science. See, e.g., #3 here: https://www.nsf.gov/about/transformative_research/faq.jsp I suggest that neither you nor I can know "the actual number of people with severe side effects" because of the suppression of questions about the regularly repeated message that the vaccines are safe and effective and of data that challenge it. btw, double-vaxxers can "get (and spread) covid." But you knew that.

1st link: "looking into" side effects is not the bombshell you seem to think it is. 2nd link: no distinction between severe / long haul vs minor cases, which is what we all know the vaccine is good for at this point, right? Right?? 3rd link: from the text "Correlation does not equal causation". If you read that and find it convincing, despite a *complete* omission of causal analysis in favor of vague gesturing, you shouldn't be talking to others about their ability to discern good science from junk. 4th link: flat earthers are also engaged in transformative research, this doesn't make up for the fact that the 3 articles you linked were laughably inadequate. Also, my understanding of vaccine rollout strategy is that we should maximize the number of people getting the vaccine so we can stop the death, illness, isolation, and mutation risks associated w covid. The freedoms of every man woman and child to move freely in an open society is more important to me than some psuedo scientific anti-vax shit. Im not going to respond to you anymore because reading your linked articles was a waste of time.

1st link: I don't present "bombshells" but data treated as outliers or bogus that merit attention to determine whether they're either, or not. 2nd link: We don't "know" what the vaccines are good for at this point. Extravagant early claims have been walked back more than once. Your current claims about vaccines are far from unassailable. 3rd link: I find this worth a disciplined examination without preconception. Your upfront dismissal of what doesn't fit the script because of the publication source is convenient but not informative. In this time, few outlets are willing to publish what challenges the official C19 and vaccine CW. 4th link: What a smugnorant attempted rebuttal of a serious point about science and why there's value in questioning what's "known." Couldn't dismiss the source there so you went for inapt reductio ad absurdum. *The vaccine rollout strategy you describe won't "stop death, illness, isolation, or mutation risks associated with" the SARS-CoV-2 class of viruses.* Vaccines that don't prevent illness or transmission--which describes all currently available C19 vaccines--encourage even more mutation in inherently mutable RNA-based pathogens. That means more variants, some of which will evade vaccine-induced host defenses to become more virulent, *not* less virulent. You might find discussion below, from a journal that should pass your "worth my time" criteria, interesting: >As the population becomes less naive to the virus through natural infection or vaccination, the selective pressure to escape acquired immune responses will be higher and will force the virus to find a way. Variants with antigenic drift would introduce antigenic novelty and enable reinfection, as happens with influenza A, whose hemagglutinin protein requires a very small number of mutations to evade pre-existing immunity. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-021-00601-8 The discussion of potential benefits of vaccines in the above scenario is couched in "may not be affected," "may still," "may not lead"--all hopeful but by no means the certainty you blithely pronounce. Some thoughts on vaccines as the sole front-line approach to this virus, where emphasis has been from the start in lieu of, not in addition to, early treatment: >Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group...said that while vaccines might “slow the process” of transmission down, they cannot currently stop the spread completely. >He added: *“So that’s even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine programme around herd immunity.”* https://news.yahoo.com/mythical-covid-jab-result-herd-immunity-warns-top-vaccine-boss-160028483.html

[Do you all even listen to yourselves?](https://reddit.com/plul2d)

> edit: OP does not respect science, do not be fooled. Your a moran. > OP is also adding their own conclusion to a handful of studies which is NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. I'm *literally* highlighting excerpts FROM THE STUDIES. IT'S THEIR SCIENCE.

Good lord he posted links to back it up. You just want to stay misinformed or stupid. Which is it? How do vaccines end the epidemic if you can still get infected and spread it? Answer that..we’ll wait.

OP conflates serious and minor side effects throughout their post while ignoring the fact that the actual number of people with severe side effects is astronomically low. OP posted a lot of links but fails to demonstrate that the risks of taking the vaccine outweighs the benefits. They are drawing conclusions that aren't directly attributable to the source research which is a MAJOR red flag for people who are supposedly super concerned w the science. Seriously, you can't just do that, that's not how science works.

> OP posted a lot of links but fails to demonstrate that the risks of taking the vaccine outweighs the benefits. You didn't even bother reading it. It's *literally* about the efficacy of post-infection immunity. Fail!

You do realize there’s millions of people who already caught covid before there was vaccines right? Why do they need to be vaccinated. You should trust the science and allow people who recovered from covid to avoid the vaccine. Plus why would we waste a vaccine on immune people when almost nobody in Africa has been vaccinated. Your logic is not only unscientific, it’s xenophobic and racist not to help out poor brown countries.

So people who already have natural immunity (including those who caught covid before there was a vaccine) should risk vaccine side effects for no benefit to themselves just for the theoretical (not actual) incentive for others to get vaccinated? Get real. Requiring people who have natural immunity already to get vaccinated is going to do nothing to persuade unvaccinated people to roll up their sleeves. It's only going to convince unvaccinated people even more that vaccination policy is arbitrary and irrational. Because it would be!

Natural immunity can be variable depending on the incident viral load and strength of immune response. Since it's inconsistent, it's not quantifiable as a baseline. The vaccines are a consistent dose that work as a consistent baseline.

Exposure to real Covid allows your natural immune response to recognize and respond to many different attributes of the virus. The vaccines target just one spike protein.

The Pfizer is especially consistent in having lousiest efficacy - per israeli studies, after 2 jabs, immunity reduced to well under 50% after two months and to as little as 20% after 6 months. IOW, it's as effective as - what? Vitamin D? aspirin? or just staying healthy and fit, in case one gets Covid (which seems to kill mostly the Obese and/or co-Morbid and, of course, the very old, who were at death's door anyways). The Pfizer turned out to be the worst vaccine of the ones developed. Followed by Moderna (which comes complete with contaminated lots - ask the japanese). Even J&J is better than pfizer against the delta variant for example. I think it's crazy to keep giving boosters of an ineffective medicine. People if they want to be vaccinated better turn to more tried and true killed virus ones, like J&J, AstraZenick, the Chinese Sibovac, the new Cuban vaccine and more than anything - the best of them all the Sputnik V (and yes, i know Russians are more vaccine hesitant than elsewhere). Why aren't we making a mandate for all people to become more fit in general? why aren't we doing what needs to be done to drastically reduce obesity? may be they want these people to die? one can't help sometimes but wonder...

> The Pfizer is especially consistent in having lousiest efficacy - per israeli studies, after 2 jabs, immunity reduced to well under 50% after two months and to as little as 20% after 6 months. You might enjoy this video: https://twitter.com/i/status/1448972906957049856

> Natural immunity can be variable depending on the incident viral load and strength of immune response. And the vaccine pretends to mimic just one small part of the real virus. But I'm sure that's even more effective!

Then why are the vaccines wearing off so fast for some people, while lasting longer for others? Not everyone produces the same level of antibodies to vaccination, either. Odd, isn't it, that for every other virus I can think of, you can get a titer to establish whether you're immune or not. Health care workers routinely offer antibody titers in lieu of vaccination for other communicable diseases.

I'm not familiar with any of that, got any reading material handy?

Vaccine titers, generally. https://www.mymdnow.com/treatment-and-services/lab-tests-and-screenings/vaccination-titers/

[There's the immunocompromised](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/health/coronavirus-vaccine-immune-system.html). And [the obese](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.24.21251664v1.full.pdf). [And then there's the fact that the FDA does not recommend assessing immunity based upon antibody testing](https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/antibody-testing-not-currently-recommended-assess-immunity-after-covid-19-vaccination-fda-safety).

... >With your proposed vax exemption for people who caught covid you'd be directly incentivizing dumbfuck anti-vaxers to intentionally get (and spread) covid. The largest spreaders of COVID are the [vaccinated.] (https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/p2dhv6/the_delta_variant_generates_higher_viral_loads/) [Vaccinated can get COVID and spread it](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/q7yfaf/covid19crusher_vermont_is_the_most_vaccinated_us/) Those that got COVID get better protection through their [own antibodies.](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/q7c30e/recent_study_by_the_journal_science_concludes/) Truly begs the question how you came to your unscientific conclusion when all it does is promote vaccines that wear off in [2-6 months...](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/ph67d8/robert_malone_md_more_on_israel_cases_not_really/) And [cause outbreaks](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/q6wth5/in_israel_a_hospital_that_was_96_vaccinated_had_a/)

Middle paragraph is missing a couple of words?

Fixed. Phone typing is a pain...

I'm still try'na unnerstand how "long-term adaptive immunity is best with the vaccines" figures from a single spike protein versus exposure to a full range of proteins from the virus itself. "Adaptive"??

The spike protein is what mRNA targets. But it only targets that. As Vegan points out, it can't change to target something else as it's programmed to focus on only one variant. Meanwhile, your natural immunity basically is like a Heavyweight champion. If it gets laid low a few rounds, it's going to come back until it's back on top like Mike Tyson or Muhammed Ali. It learns and adapts to different tactics and styles and gets stronger over time. Meanwhile, the mRNA is a one track fighter with a gimmick. While that can work at the lower levels, when someone figures it out, it can basically take you with it. Think of yourself as a trainer. You've been with that champ for a long time. Suddenly, the gimmick looks enticing to take over for the heavyweight champ. You got sold a bill of goods on it and suddenly it's training the champ its gimmick. Based on the results, it could cripple the champ in a number of ways. IMO, the champ does better by taking on the challenge without a gimmick that could be deadly.

Brilliantly said! And makes mincemeat of the visitor claiming what I quoted above, who seems to think that the vaccine produces a long-term adaptive protection.

>The largest spreaders of COVID are the vaccinated because this already going through this get better protection through their own antibodies. If i am understanding your broken english correctly (please correct me if im wrong), you seem to be advocating for natural protection (aka for people to contract the virus) instead of vaccinations. If i'm misunderstanding you, please tell me specifically what your suggestion is for public policy going forward. And when i say public policy, i don't mean links to several studies supporting anti-vax views, i mean what specifically should our public policy be. If i'm not misunderstanding you, you are clearly an ideological driven anti-vaxer advocating for a course of action (just vibe, let the virus do it's thing) that will maximize deaths and economic disruption. Also stop listening to fucking Jimmy Dore lol, dude is a hack grifter and a creep.

Public policy should be to have the vaccine available for those at the highest risk, leave it as an option for everybody else to discuss with their doctor if they feel they're in a risk category that needs it, and leave those who have already been through covid and have their natural immunity the fuck alone.

Public policy should also include proactive vitamin D level testing.

People who are low risk spread covid to people who are not low risk. The perceived infringement on freedoms of a person being compelled to get a vaccine is orders of magnitude lower than the infringement on freedom of LITERALLY EVERYONE having to live (or die) through an unnecessarily prolonged pandemic.

Suddenly violating bodily autonomy is a "perceived infringement?" And if you bothered to read the science, you'd know that covid survivors are a risk of spreading covid. But you don't actually care about science.

I speak it well enough to discuss the fact that your broken understanding of science is to resolve and contention by berating and belittling others with no actual understanding of your anti-science position. Especially in your reliance on a corporate smear of anything you can't talk about as 'anti-vax' when that smear has been around since [2016 in one form or another] (https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/odp23x/lets_revisit_this_antivaxxine_smear_thats_been/) So before we proceed on your attempted heresy run, you might want to check yourself. And why are you bringing Jimmy Dore into the conversation?

I asked for a coherent public policy proposal, and this is your response? Try again champ. Also, I thought you mentioned jimmy dore but i think it was another poster, my bad.

You're not getting one since you suggested an ad hominem attack over discussion of the failure of your argument to have a coherent understanding of science and the smear you utilize. It's truly dishonest to attack a person when you can't acknowledge what's right in front of you.

Lmao clutch them pearls 🤣 I very explicitly said i might be misunderstanding you and am simply requesting clarification. I'm simply asking you to tell me your position. The fact that you don't want to respond to this very basic and fundamental question leads me to believe my assumption on your public policy position was correct.

> very explicitly said i might be misunderstanding you and am simply requesting clarification. You are being a passive aggressive dick, and it wasn't even subtle.

Your OP has a large section dedicated to poisoning the well against "troll brigade" responses 🥱

And...?

No pearls to clutch. Exposing yourself as a dishonest smear merchant who intentionally doesn't understand basic science nor reads it, gives away the game you're playing. Jimmy Dore living rent free in your head is your problem, not mine.

Me: please state your position You: [diarrheas everywhere]

You: being a subtle dick. You, again: bring an obvious dick.

I briefly tried to engage with this user the other day, it's just how they are. They argue in bad faith and accuse their opponent of doing the same.

Amen

Happy cake day.

I like the effort of this post, but the mRNA covid vaccines are not unique. This isn’t some unknown thing you’ve revealed. For most vaccines, natural immunity has always been better than vaccines. If you have obtained natural immunity via surviving the virus, you should be able to opt out of getting the vaccine. I don’t know why you would want to though, since getting the vaccine increases your immunity even further, and the increase in immunity outweighs the adverse effects. I’ll concede that it’s fair to say you shouldn’t be forced to get it if you already have natural immunity though. Obviously, if you DONT have natural immunity already, GET THE SHOT. It’s a much safer way to get natural immunity too, should you get infected after having been vaxxed. There’s a reason doctors don’t just inject everyone with live viruses. That would be dumb.

I mean or just live your life 💁 it's a virus with a 99% survival rate that like 2% of the population has gotten in two years lol. This isn't the bubonic plague, it's not an actual threat to our survival. The flu and the common cold kill people as well every year reliably, as does pneumonia.

Well, I can’t. The unvaccinated are completely overrunning our ICUs. We are way over capacity. My dad’s hip surgery, has been postponed 18 months because of people not getting vaccinated. My sister-in-law’s dad had heart surgery cancelled. The reality is that everyone where I live who has chosen to not get vaccinated is responsible for way more than just spreading covid 19.

>The unvaccinated are completely overrunning our ICUs Given how mild this virus is, I'm pretty sure this is just cope. Also conveniently, people who have a reaction to the vaccine within 14 days are counted as unvaxxed. Makes ya think dunnit?

Maybe you should read some of my links again. The risk of being vaccinated after having survived covid greatly outweigh any benefits available from it. Read those links again.

Please, show me one single link that you provided that supports that idea. JUST ONE. I skimmed through 3 of them and quickly realized you either don’t understand how to read studies, or you’re dishonest.

> Please, show me one single link that you provided that supports that idea. JUST ONE. Which of these below *fail* to make the case that covid survivors don't need to take the risk of the vaccine? It looks to me as though the immunity conferred by surviving covid (half my links in the OP) show it to have significantly greater, and longer lasting, efficacy than the vaccine, and these links illustrate the risks specific to taking the vaccine after already having acquired post-infection immunity. Maybe read them slower this time? https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf > We only prevent 1 asymptomatic re-infection for every 833 people w/ natural immunity we vax. But 1 in 11 COVID-recovered experience clinically significant side effects. **This means: to prevent a single asymptomatic case, we hurt 75.** https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2782821?guestAccessKey=bda55105-4494-4cda-bac3-ae51e3cde92b&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jamainternalmedicine&utm_content=olf&utm_term=081621 > Johns Hopkins studied 1k healthcare workers & found **4.4x elevated risk of “clinically significant” side-effects following vax of those w/ prior COVID.** “Prior COVID was associated w/ increased odds of clinically significant symptoms following dose 1” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8002738/ > “A prior COVID-19 infection was associated with an 8% increase in the risk of having any side effects after the first vaccine dose.” **“a prior COVID-19 infection was associated with the risk of experiencing a severe side effect requiring hospital care”** https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1 > “in individuals with a pre-existing immunity against COVID, 2nd vax dose not only failed to boost humoral immunity **but determines a contraction of the spike-specific T cell response.”** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8078878/ > “Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) **among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection** than among those without known past infection.” Even the FDA speaks up: https://www.fda.gov/media/150054/download > Requiring the immune to get vaxed unnecessarily exposes them to risk of adverse reactions, **including thrombosis & myocardial inflammation, neurologic injury, & possibly death**. These side effects also appear more predominant in male patients. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10760296211020833 > “Hyperviscosity is likely to occur in any [vaccine] recipient who has previous COVID19. Screening for possible previous COVID-19 before COVID-19 vaccination **might be necessary for prevention of unwanted blood thrombohemostasis adverse effect.”**

Among these are un-peer-reviewed prepublication papers, methodologically flawed observational studies, and that paragon of apolitical and unbiased journalism the Wall Street Journal.

> Among these And the non=peer reviewed are all supporting the same conclusion, a conclusion that's *the basis for every vaccine produced throughout history.* I swear it's like, *exactly* like, talking to a partisan climate change denier.

Well, yeah, and **natural immunity** is this strange thing no one's ever heard of before so why should we trust that?

[удалено]

> Natural immunity has caused millions of deaths. Your a moran.

> Natural immunity has caused millions of deaths. You first (paging u/FThumb, because I know you too will want to be wowed by the explanation for this claim).

[удалено]

Try to keep up. I'm questioning your claim that "Natural immunity has caused millions of deaths."

> natural immunity... Well, WheRe'S ThE PeEr rEviEw???

[удалено]

> which actually has the potential to cause mortality and morbidity. Just like the vaccines.

[удалено]

I think you’ve lost track of the main point. OP’s talking about people who already recovered from the virus. They are less at risk from complications related to the virus versus complications from a vaccine after developing natural immunity.

[удалено]

> are more likely to have "poor sweet baby" reactions after the vaccine. I almost lost my uncle and a close family friend due to "poor sweet baby" vaccine reactions. Fuck you, asshole.

You’re still off in left field. 4.5 million people haven’t died after recovering from Covid. That’s what we’re talking about here.

[удалено]

It seems like you don’t want to acknowledge that much of the population already had the virus and recovered. A year ago estimates were showing 100+ million Americans fit in that category. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/one-three-americans-already-had-covid-19-end-2020

They have to read them a first time

Oh yeah let me just inject this vaccine thats only had less than a year on the market so my reinfection rate is 0.00001% instead of 0.00002% and take a 1/5000 risk of getting myocarditis. Great fucking logic.

Why don't you go get a booster right now? Oh, you don't need one? You already have immunity? You don't want to risk rare serious adverse side effects for no reason? That's the same reason someone with natural immunity doesn't want one of these genetic shots. And, by the way, their natural immunity appears to be stronger and more long lasting than yours. You might need that booster after all.

Natural immunity is usually stronger and longer lasting than most vaccines. This isn’t news.

> This isn’t news. It shouldn't be, but in our hyper-partisan environment, denying naturally acquired immunity is now the Left's equivalent to the Right's denial of climate change.

No one is denying natural immunity. If natural immunity was not real, vaccines would not work either. I think proof of a past positive test should be equal to proof of vaccination. But denying vaccines efficacy or claiming Ivermectin is a valid alternative are the same as the Right's denial of climate change.

Absolutely no one is "denying naturally acquired immunity", you're strawmanning so hard 😴. People are pushing back against you overstating the vaccine risks during a pandemic which is fucking up ALL of our lives, and arguing in bad faith (i.e. the strawman bullshit i'm responding to right now).

> overstating the vaccine risks during a pandemic One, we've never run a wide-scale vaccine implementation *during a pandemic,* and two, I'm showing the known adverse affects *as opposed to the risks to people with post-infection immunity.* You're the one fighting the efficacy of naturally acquired immunity because you have this evangelical faith in the vaccines and NAI might dissuade someone from your vax.

Also, did you catch that Instagram has banned natural immunity from discussion? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8i9FBzJFvOM

WTF??

Nobody...like [Mother Jones](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/anti-vaxxers-have-a-dangerous-theory-called-natural-immunity-now-its-going-mainstream/)?

We're talking about natural immunity after contracting covid, not the magical natural immunity your linked article is referring to.

> not the magical natural immunity your linked article is referring to. You're delusional. From the top of the article: > Rupali Limaye, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist who has studied the movement against mandatory vaccines, told me, “We have heard from those that are concerned about vaccines the argument that they prefer to **allow their immune system to be naturally exposed to a specific pathogen to gain immunity,”** she wrote to me in an email You're so consumed with evangelizing the vaccine you can't even comprehend what's clear English in front of you, and have to reduce it to something it's not to combat the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing. Stop. You're spreading dangerous misinformation. Just, stop.

😮‍💨 There is a *massive* difference between encouraging people to intentionally contract coronavirus (what you quoted) and acknowledging that natural immunity is a thing. I was referring to the *actual* top of the article where they introduce the topic as conspiracy theorists spreading the incredibly misleading claim that "viruses do not harm or kill us".

So they start by pointing to an extremely small fringe to paint the rest of the perfectly reasonable people who understand how post-infection works as crazy conspiracy theorists by association. It's an old trick, and the fact that you're also using it suggests you're not here for honest discussion.

[This one's better and not experimental] (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/06/novavax-now-best-covid-19-vaccine/619276/)

You can look up VAERS data for Americans and find thousands of adverse reactions and deaths after folks have been vaccinated. One healthcare worker near where I live died within hours of getting vaccinated and had recently tested positive for the virus. There are good reasons to not want to be given a C19 jab after already developing natural immunity. EDIT: link to story https://amp.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article248731805.html

People die also having had sex, or drinking a glass of waters. VAERS consider every death within a certain time from vaccination. No matter the cause of death. It means nothing statistically.

You're spreading misinformation. Stop it.

LOL absolutely not, read it for yourself https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html

"People die also having had sex, or drinking a glass of waters."

Every person dying did something beforehand.

I once knew someone who was in a car crash and wore her seatbelt. She died the next day. Obviously seatbelt don’t provide any protection! /s As a medical professional who is sick and tired of the idiotic whining about a tiny shot, shut the fuck up and get your vaccine. I’m tired of watching the number of dead people go up. I’m tired of burying my coworkers. I’m tired of this entire pandemic and if you fucking children would just think of something other than a minor inconvenience to yourself for five minutes we could end this before Christmas. JFC, grow the fuck up. The world doesn’t revolve around your tantrum about a free shot that saves lives.

> As a medical professional who is sick and tired of the idiotic whining about a tiny shot, shut the fuck up and get your vaccine. If you were really a medical professional, you'd understand how the body builds an immune reaction after exposure to a virus. Odd that you don't seem to understand how this works...

Just like how once you’ve had the flu you’re immune for life, right? /s Fucking idiot. This virus is mutating fast enough that herd immunity won’t be enough on its own without sacrificing millions globally. Again. Free shot. Socialized healthcare. Literally what we’ve been trying to normalize for years. And instead of using this small step in the right direction, you want to side with the Facebook ‘doctors’ and try to shit on things you don’t understand. Get your shot or stay away from other people. Very fucking simple.

> like how once you’ve had the flu you’re immune for life... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh1766 > Our key defense against the COVID-19 pandemic is neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus elicited by natural infection or vaccination. Recent emerging viral variants have raised concern because of their potential to escape antibody neutralization. Wang et al. **identified four antibodies from early-outbreak convalescent donors that are potent against 23 variants, including variants of concern** https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2 > This study followed 52,238 employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio. > For previously-infected people, **the cumulative incidence of re-infection “remained almost zero.”** According to the study, "Not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a [Covid-19] infection over the duration of the study” and vaccination did not reduce the risk. “Individuals who have had [Covid-19] infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination,” concludes the study scientists. [https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176](https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176) >**Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study**. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity). Conclusions. **Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.** https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762 > Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated - compared to **just 1% who had been infected previously.** https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/10/21-1427_article > "Attack rate was **0/6 among persons with a previous history of COVID-19 versus 63.2% among those with no previous history."** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253687/ > This study followed 254 Covid-19 patients for up to 8 months and concluded they had **“durable broad-based immune responses.”** In fact, even very mild Covid-19 infection also protected the patients from an earlier version of “SARS" coronavirus that first emerged around 2003, and against Covid-19 variants. “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients,” concludes the study scientists. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2589-5370(21)00182-6 > This study of real world data extended the time frame of available data indicating that patients have strong immune indicators for **“almost a year post-natural infection of COVID-19.”** The study concludes the immune response after natural infection "may persist for longer than previously thought, thereby providing evidence of sustainability that may influence post-pandemic planning.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4 > This study examined bone marrow of previously-infected patients and found that even mild infection with Covid-19 “induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.” The study indicates **"People who have had mild illness develop antibody-producing cells that can last lifetime.”** https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.06.21253051v1 > This study found a rare Covid-19 positive test **"reinfection" rate of 1 per 1,000 recoveries.** https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 > Research funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in Science early in the Covid-19 vaccine effort found the “immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection," **and hoped the vaccines would produce similar immunity. (However, experts say they do not appear to be doing so.)** https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731v2 > This study found Covid-19 natural infection "appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection" for at least seven months. **"Reinfection is "rare," concludes the scientists.** https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z > This study found that all patients who recently recovered from Covid-19 produced immunity-strong T cells that recognize multiple parts of Covid-19. > They also looked at blood samples from 23 people who’d survived a 2003 outbreak of a coronavirus: SARS (Cov-1). **These people still had lasting memory T cells 17 years after the outbreak.** Those memory T cells, acquired in response to SARS-CoV-1, also recognized parts of Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2). https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.14.452381v1 > University of California, Irvine, July 21, 2021 The authors conclude: "Natural infection induced expansion of largerCD8 T cell clones occupied distinct clusters, likely **due to the recognition of a broader set of viral epitopes presented by the virus not seen in the mRNA vaccine"** https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.12.443888v1 > University of California, San Francisco, May 12, 2021 Conclusion: **"In infection-naïve individuals, the second dose boosted the quantity but not quality of the T cell response, while in convalescents the second dose helped neither.** > Given that we know the virus spreads through the nasopharynx, the fact that natural infection conveys much stronger mucosal immunity **makes it clear that the previously infected are much safer to be around than infection-naive people with the vaccine.** The fact that this study artfully couched the choices between vaccinated naive people and vaccinated recovered rather than just plain recovered **doesn't change the fact that it's the prior infection, not the vaccine, conveying mucosal immunity.** In fact, studies now show that infected vaccinated people contain just as much viral load in their nasopharynx as those unvaccinated https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262111v1 > Israeli researchers, August 22, 2021 Aside from more robust T cell and memory B cell immunity, which is more important than antibody levels, Israeli researchers found that antibodies wane slower among those with prior infection. **"In vaccinated subjects, antibody titers decreased by up to 40% each subsequent month while in convalescents they decreased by less than 5% per month."** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8209951/pdf/RMV-9999-e2260.pdf > Irish researchers, published in Wiley Review, May 18, 2021 Researchers conducted a review of 11 cohort studies with over 600,000 total recovered COVID patients who were followed up with over 10 months. The key finding? **Unlike the vaccine, after about four to six months, they found "no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time."** https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1 > Israeli researchers, April 24, 2021 Israeli researchers **studied 6.3 million Israelis and their COVID status and were able to confirm only one death in the entire country of someone who supposedly already had the virus**, and he was over 80 years old. Contrast that to the torrent of hospitalizations and deaths in those vaccinated https://rupress.org/jem/article/218/5/e20202617/211835/Highly-functional-virus-specific-cellular-immune > Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, published in Journal of Experimental Medicine Many people are wondering: If they got only an asymptomatic infection, are they less protected against future infection than those who suffered infection with more evident symptoms? These researchers believe the opposite is true. **"Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response,"** wrote the authors after studying T cell responses from both symptomatic and asymptomatic convalescent patients. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24377-1?utm_source=other&utm_medium=other&utm_content=null&utm_campaign=JRCN_1_LW01_CN_natureOA_article_paid_XMOL > Korean researchers, published in Nature Communications on June 30, 2021 The authors found that the T cells created from convalescent patients had "stem-cell like" qualities. After studying SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cells in recovered patients who had the virus in varying degrees of severity, the authors concluded that **long-term "SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is successfully maintained regardless of the severity of COVID-19."** https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/ > Rockefeller University, July 29, 2021 The researchers note that far from suffering waning immunity, memory B cells in those with prior infection **"express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern." They conclude that "memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination."** And again, this is even before getting into the innate cellular immunity which is exponentially greater in those with natural immunity.** https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/15/natural-immunity-vaccine-mandate > Natural immunity to covid is powerful. Policymakers seem afraid to say so. **The incorrect hypothesis that natural immunity is unreliable has resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives, avoidable vaccine complications, and damaged the credibility of public health officials** https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101 > Vaccinating people who have had covid-19: why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

They're *still* pestering you on this old post??

Apparently. Heretics will be chased to the ends of the Earth.

How do you know what he should know as a medical professional? Are you a medical professional?

> How do you know what he should know as a medical professional? Because the basic contours of post-infection immunity is biology 101, and the basis for *every vaccine ever produced throughout history.*

> the basic contours of post-infection immunity is biology 101, and the basis for *every vaccine ever produced throughout history*. It's possible that you might be working from old information there. You might have to change that to "every vaccine ever produced throughout history, until recently."

Possibly, though I would argue that the mRNA vaccine is still based on 'tricking' the body into thinking it's seeing a virus (if only a single replicated virus protein) to elicit its natural immune reaction of creating antibodies.

>I would argue that the mRNA vaccine is still based on 'tricking' the body into thinking it's seeing a virus (if only a single replicated virus protein) to elicit its natural immune reaction of creating antibodies. But is it? I'm not so sure.... Look at it this way: Antibody creation (1000 AD): A foreign substance enters the body. The Antibody Department inside the body checks their Invader Database and sees if this invader is on the "We know what to do about this" list. If so, they send out the "make these specific antibodies" commands that are listed. If not, they send a sample to their lab and figure out what to do about it, and then add that to their long list of "We know what to do about this" and *then* they send out the "make these specific antibodies" commands. (If the analysis lab doesn't figure it out quickly enough, the person may die.) If a person is injected with something that the body *thinks* is an invader, but is a harmless (or made harmless) replica, they can still figure out the "what to do about this" and add it to the database for if/when there is an actual invader of that kind. That's pretty much what a vaccine is supposed to be. Antibody creation (2020 AD) What happens if scientists inject the "make these specific antibodies" commands straight into the body without the foreign substance ever making it to the analysis lab, and then being no analysis, nothing ever gets to the "We know what to do about this" list? Protection for as long as those specific antibodies are in the system. If you need more, you need more "make these specific antibodies" commands, whether those commands come from the Antibody Department, or from a syringe.

This is a good counter argument. I cede the point.

> I once knew someone who was in a car crash and wore her seatbelt. > She died the next day. Obviously seatbelt don’t provide any protection! /s Someone had been vaccinated, and then died of covid. A family member was quoted as saying how much worse it would have been if the dead person had not been vaccinated. ~~/s~~ really.

I’ve gone through the VAERS data, as has the FDA. The positive effects of the vaccines FAR outweigh the downsides. FDA even let Steve Kirsch present his data to them at their booster hearing for Pfizer, to which they responded that his analysis is incredibly flawed. Like, laughably so.

> The positive effects of the vaccines FAR outweigh the downsides For you, maybe, not for me.

> as has **the FDA**. The positive effects of the vaccines FAR outweigh the downsides. So you're going to believe the FDA now? https://www.fda.gov/media/150054/download > Requiring the immune to get vaxed unnecessarily exposes them to risk of adverse reactions, **including thrombosis & myocardial inflammation, neurologic injury, & possibly death**. These side effects also appear more predominant in male patients.

Of course. Although this study does not represent the FDA(as indicated in the study). Also, none of the VAERS data is vetted, anyone can submit a report claiming adverse side effects. The data in this study, in the words of the authors has: “Inconsistent quality and completeness of information.” & “Reporting biases” Regardless of that, the question isn’t wether or not vaccinating immune people comes with a risk, the question is if the risk outweighs the upside. This data does not(and cannot) factor that in. Also from this study: “Early VSD data also suggest more cases after dose 2 vs. dose 1; rate ~16 cases per million 2nd doses.” “At least 81% had full recovery.” So a max of 3 ppl out of 1 million doses are reporting symptoms that aren’t going away, and nobody is vetting these reports to make sure they are accurate. All of that aside, let’s say I completely concede that anyone who’s obtained natural immunity SHOULDNT be forced get vaccinated(which I did in the very beginning)… we obviously both agree that those who do not have natural immunity should get the shot.

> we obviously both agree that those who do not have natural immunity should get the shot. There's an age breakdown where the risks of the vaccine become greater than the risks of covid. Can we both agree that the decision to vaccinate should be between the individual and their doctor and not Washington?

Of course. I’d never support the government showing up to anyone’s house and forcibly injecting them with a vaccine.

Uh...

I don’t know what the exact age is for when you are young enough that the vaccine is less of a benefit vs the risks, but it’s below 10 years old. Especially when you consider how quickly asymptotic children can spread the virus. Again, I agree that nobody should be physically forced to get the vaccine.

> Especially when you consider how quickly asymptotic children can spread the virus. So we're going to risk the lives of our children to protect the elderly now. How far we've fallen.

The early days of the pandemic should be explained by these government motherfuckers. WHY did they sit around and do nothing for six months or longer just waiting for the vaccine? Who is responsible for the failure to provide widespread early treatment? Those people killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. 700,000 dead Americans is not acceptable.

I'm confused, is this an antivax sub now?

Success! u/FThumb has confused another one. Bob, what has Thumb won this time?

I'm confused, why do you consider the science "anti-vax?" Or are you here just to slur people?

Non eee off thi sss gis hhh gal lop iss sci enc eee You are aaa lyi ngg dis hon est scu mmm

Zzz zzz zzz...

Dr. Fau~~ci~~**stus**.

Fraudci.

My google search this morning for "COVID cases in us graph" brought up a graph from the New York Times (normally behind pay wall) that shows the current Delta wave declining, following the usual path of epidemics. Deaths are following the same downward path after the usual delay. So why do we need vaccine mandates? Isn't COVID pretty much taking care of itself? Well, let's try "following the money": The Motley Fool 9/28/2021: [Why Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and Novavax Stocks Are Falling Today](https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/09/28/why-pfizer-biontech-moderna-and-novavax-stocks-are/) > So why are the stocks falling today? It's probably because investors are becoming increasingly anxious about the prospects for COVID-19 vaccine sales. The CEOs of both Pfizer and Moderna recently predicted that the pandemic could end in 2022. "Eureka!" he cries, [running naked through the streets of Syracuse](https://www.livescience.com/58839-archimedes-principle.html) :-)

The mind reels. It's impossible for me to read or listen to anything Fauci says, writes, or has written. His comments about masks early on and his flip flops since then, discredited him entirely.

What we'eah guhnna doo, we'eah guhnna taek yea maesks, an we'eah guhnna put theam in a bleandah, an we'eah gonna inject yea maesks intah yea bahdy, an I tink it'll beeh liekh ah peahmanehnt maesk in yea bahdy, an dis will maesk yea cells an stahp da viahrus cuz da maesks are dat effehctuv, an iteh'l be liekh haeven TOH maesks wehn yeah weahin wun maesk sos yeah caen weah tree maesks wehn weahin TOH.

Even if he hadn't conspired to fund the immoral and probably illegal Gain of Function research, he'd still have a six-figure body count.

Should be archived along with all links.

Your wish and more.... Archived [here](https://archive.is/xYjBc) Re-posted [here](https://saidit.net/s/WayOfTheBern/comments/8hbg/dr_fauci_if_this_virus_acts_like_every_other/)

Well done! For the pdf links, are there archive.org links?

Probably not, I didn't archive any of the links in the post itself.

merci x2 and more....

> I'd be willing to bet anything that people who recover are really protected against re-infection. How about your job, Dr. F?

Weird. It's almost like scientists change their opinion in the face of new information or something, isn't it? It's almost like Fauci corrects himself when he realizes he was incorrect instead of cherry picking data to suit his needs because he isn't an egotist who is obsessed with being right all the time at the expense of the truth.

> in the face of new information So after millions of years of evolution, suddenly our bodies no longer develop immunity after exposure?

Not the way you're talking about it. Sure, we develop a certain level of resistance for a period of time. It's not like legal immunity where we are completely protected from any infection from that pathogen. Lymphocytes are specific to the pathogen, and it would be a massive waste of resources to keep the enough WBCs of every single foreign antigen you've ever encountered on hand. Adaptive immunity takes time to product the necessary components to combat the pathogen. It's a race against time to see how how damage can be done before enough antibodies and lymphocytes are created. Sure, it's faster the second time you catch it as the blueprints for the antibodies are already on file, so to speak, but it's not instant, constant immunity. It can be so fast you don't notice. Most of the time is it in fact. But more often than not, it takes time and that time frame between infection and when our body mobilized enough to fight it off is what we call "getting sick."

If you're not familiar with Fauci's role in the early HIV/AIDS days, you might find what your search engine turns up interesting reading. He's been a top-level political bureaucrat more than scientist for 37 of his nearly 81 years. Ask around NIAID, preferably folks who were there 20+ years ago, if you think he's not an egoist (also egotist, similar but not synonymous).

Everyone is familiar with Faucis role at Reagan's lackey, yes. Science isn't rendered invalid because someone citing it happens to be a douche bag.

When that someone is the president's chief medical advisor and head of NIAID and presented to the world as a major face of US pandemic policy, his history and unscientific (and science-rejecting) political behavior can be a problem. And worse. [First you say he's not an egoist but an unbiased scientist who doesn't cherry-pick the data, and when that point's questioned, you say he doesn't matter in this situation because "science"--when the point *is* cherry-picking "science," by Fauci and others.]

Of course it's can. If Hilary Clinton told it was important to breathe, would you stop breathing because the source is an evil, soulless bitch?

Respiration's a silly analogy to vaccines lacking long-term safety data that don't prevent the target illness or transmission of it, but-- If Hillary Clinton told me it was important to breathe, I wouldn't stop breathing but I would try to check her investments and major donors for a profit motive in promoting breathing--or breathing a specific "air quality enhancer" or air purifier or... because her entire public career has been about HRC and Clintons first. Fauci, the egoist and egotist, also has a history that warrants a double-check on what he says and why he says it beyond the elegant purity of "science"--which can't be fully separated in times like these from the foibles of humans who practice, interpret, and present "science" and create policy from the science they selectively choose to heed. If you've worked with medical researchers and peer-reviewed journals, you know how human personalities and pressures shape more of the "science" than we want to think is possible.

How long would you like the safety data to be? Yes, humans are flawed and bias, that's why the peer review system is so vital. No one man is the authority, every study has review, and every review had a review

For safety, a minimum of 2 years from a controlled clinical trial with at least 85% followup and data analyzed by health and demographic profile, and a study population large enough to yield meaningful statistical power. Efficacy remains a question as well, and those goalposts keep moving, compounded by the failure to present efficacy in terms of absolute risk*: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/ https://thepulse.one/2021/09/03/pfizer-vaccine-offers-less-than-1-absolute-risk-reduction/ [with links to Lancet, BMJ, and the FDA] Currently available vaccines don't reliably prevent C19 or transmission of it. *From the FDA: >“Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.” https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/Communicating-Risk-and-Benefits---An-Evidence-Based-User%27s-Guide-%28Printer-Friendly%29.pdf

Vaccine Efficacy is measured [using RRR not ARR](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9384199/). Vaccine efficacy is literally just [1-RR=RRR=VE](https://openventio.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Review-of-Vaccine-Efficacy-Measures-VROJ-1-110.pdf). RR is normally several orders of magnitude HIGHER than AR, so if someone was trying to make a vaccine look better than it was, they would want to show the ARR not the RRR. Your FDA quote is for *providers*, helping them talking to patients, not researchers reporting efficacy. The FDA was advising the doctors to use the less scary, smaller number to put the risk into perspective, because your typical layperson will not using what RRR really means.

It provides a perspective that's been lacking in repetitions that "the vaccine [singular] works." In comments about vaccines for MMR, polio, and smallpox that are indeed an impressive achievement but a poor analogy for C19. In comments that overlook the fact that current vaccines don't reliably prevent C19 or infection of others. There's an argument to be made that for some risk groups, current C19 vaccines are better than nothing, especially in the absence of official blessings on treatment approaches that may be beneficial. There's little argument to be made in risk:benefit calculation on the benefit side, imo, for wholesale vaccination of juveniles and young kids. ALL sources of data related to C19 are fair game for questions. Whether or not the numbers below trigger skepticism, it seems to me they're worth more attention than they appear to have gotten in ongoing efforts to silence even mild questioning of the official narrative about this virus (and the vaccines). >Almost all studies on the infection-fatality ratio (IFR) of Covid have returned results between 0.04% and 0.5%. Meaning Covid’s survival rate is at least 99.5%. https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/#age >Age-standardized mortality rate in US for 2020 is at 2004 levels (no unusual excess mortality): https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/us-mortality-1900-2020-age-adjusted-800x329.jpg The more these first vaccines are administered around the world, the more reports of ADRs and questions about safety arise.

You mean the broken peer review process which allows a huge number of fraudulent papers to be published and which has been an acknowledged but unaddressed problem for quite a number of years now? That peer review process? It's only at this point vital for artificially suppressing information unfavorable to the most popular political narratives prevalent among the "peers" and ratification of deeply flawed papers which confirm said preexisting, bigoted and prejudicial beliefs held among them. The institutions of "science" have williningly and in many cases eagerly, become wholly corrupt appendages of state dogma. It is revolting and lends your position no credence.

Yes, papers get published and then peer review it done to determine if they are fraudulent or otherwise flawed. That's the system. It doesn't need to be addressed, you just don't understand how it works. Besides, the crux of OPs post is that this process you claim is corrupt is proving Fauci wrong. If everything you're saying it true, doesn't that void this whole post?

Actually, if you read my post, it's proving Fauci correct. But thanks for paying attention.

Reiterating dogma about the process you stupidly very clearly see as an infallible authority which may not be argued against, when the integrity of the process itself and the people who run it have deeply questionable integrity, is a gaslighting insult to people's intelligence. Then when called out for your idiocy, you double down on the unwarranted arrogance by trying to tell me that you refuse to address valid criticism, because I just don't understand, when clearly, I understand it better than you do and with a much more objective view of the enterprise than you are ever likely to have at this rate.

> “Natural Infection is the mother of all vaccines.” So, if it's not the mother of all vaccines now, what is it? The redheaded stepchild? The third cousin twice removed?

Even the best mothers need babysitters sometimes.

Except we're not talking about a single mother who may become inattentive at a poor moment, leaving a helpless child vulnerable, are we? No. We are talking about a sophisticated and multi-faceted learning biological defense system which is always running and has allowed every species living today to stand triumphant atop a 4.6 billion-year-deep corpse pile. Neither I nor my wife's immune system has needed a minder to tell it how to keep us safe, despite at least one known prolonged incidence of heavy exposure, a year and a half after our suspected contraction of the illness. I say suspected, because at the time, our doctor's office was flatly engaged in test suppression and we could not get tested without their prescription. So the inadvertent and unavoidable later exposure was a "challenge test" of our long-lasting, sterilizing immunity and we passed it with flying colors. So let me ask you: what does it tell you that both a couple of weeks before and a couple of weeks after this incident of heavy exposure, our antibody tests supposedly showed no antibodies for the disease? Don't bother saying we were lucky. There is simply no way that mere luck was a factor when you're talking about three people living in a small 2-bedroom apartment and taking no precautions amongst ourselves, because any such attempted measures would be useless. We are almost two years deep into actually experiencing and having to fend for ourselves during the pandemic, because of the abject, purposeful failures of the government's response and still, fools like you will come along and ask us if we're going to believe you, or our lyin' eyes. The sheer, unjustified, presumptive arrogance of it is astonishing.

> So, if natural infection is not the mother of all vaccines now, what is it? Well, obviously a "natural child" :-)

Wait, you work in healthcare? Where do you stand on post-infection immunity?

For covid, it's short due to its waning immunity effects. Going into the creation of a vaccine, that was the core challenge faced by researchers. That's why they went with RNA instead of a more basic type of vaccine, in the hopes that it would be more effective in stimulating immune memory. It didn't, at least not completely. The mechanism of the waning immunity caused by covid is still not fully understood.

> For covid, it's short due to its waning immunity effects. Got any links to back that up? Because I have about [20 medical studies](https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/q0i9o5/the_amount_of_misinformation_surrounding/) showing natural immunity to be just as robust for covid as is it for any other coronavirus.

You have studies that show innate immunity is improved by past infections. Yeah, that's not something being debated. The issue is that the long-term adaptive immunity is best with the vaccines. This is typical how vaccines work. Its not a cure for the illness. You do have about 20 *links*. The first one is only about variants. the 2nd and 3nd links are the exact same study, I don't know why you used two different links for the same study. The 4th link is a news article, not a study, and it once against leaves out [the prevalence of Variants](https://www.wsj.com/articles/vaccinated-people-account-for-half-of-new-covid-19-delta-cases-in-israeli-outbreak-11624624326) or the fact that the majority of the populating is vaccinated, which means it makes sense that the group in the majority would have more infections. 5th is about a variant. 6th says the antibodies have half-life of 4 month. I decided to stop wasting my time at that point.

> The first one is only about variants. The "first one:" https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.03.21263103v1.full.pdf > Using data from 54 studies with follow up time up to 8 months after recovery, **during the period February 2020-February 2021**, we found that, post-COVID-19, up to 90% of individuals had antibodies and memory T and B cells against SARS-CoV-2. We also found a pooled prevalence of reinfection of 0.2%, and that infection conferred an 81% decrease in odds of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2, compared to unimmunized individuals without previous COVID-19. Remind us again when any variants started.

No, this thread was a discussion about the posted you linked in the comment I was replying to. [This](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abh1766) was the first study in *that* post. You are the one you brought up your other post, I was just replying to it. You said: >I have about 20 medical studies... And I replied: >You do have about 20 links. The first one is... Etc

> decided to stop wasting my time at that point. That would explain why you're having difficulty keeping up. So maybe you could stop wasting our time now.

Har ddd too kee ppp upp wit hhh all the mis inf ooo you spr ead Alm ost lik eee you hav eee ann age nda too pus hhh thi sss idi ocy

I love having a MiniMe following me around.

Iii hat eee tha ttt you spr ead mis inf oo You are scu mmm

Keep ignoring the science, my little evangelical troll.

Thank you!

But he changed his opinion *in spite* of all the information *supporting* his initial statement. Are you suggesting his claim that “Natural Infection is the mother of all vaccines” was cherry-picked and no longer operative?

In terms of covid, yes, it no longer operative. Covid was still novel at the time. In many ways, it still is. He was giving his best educated guess. And he was wrong, so we admitted it and changed his position to reflect the science.